2seaoat wrote:It partly explains the irrational behavior of President Trump. Would he go off the rails for General Flynn. I doubt it.

Good point.

Oh, please. It's just more Seaoat drivel passing for reasoned discourse. An impersonal, neuter pronoun with no antecedent, an incorrectly punctuated question--rubbish. Puh-leeeze.

Don't you have anything better to do than pick on people? Puh-leeze. I'm a nut for proper language usage but will give most people a pass when they say something I consider worth saying, as long as I'm able to understand it -- and whether or not it's couched in perfect English. I happen to think Sea makes a potentially valid point here. So there, big boy. Go entertain yourself some other way.

2seaoat wrote:It partly explains the irrational behavior of President Trump. Would he go off the rails for General Flynn. I doubt it.

Good point.

Oh, please. It's just more Seaoat drivel passing for reasoned discourse. An impersonal, neuter pronoun with no antecedent, an incorrectly punctuated question--rubbish. Puh-leeeze.

Don't you have anything better to do than pick on people? Puh-leeze. I'm a nut for proper language usage but will give most people a pass when they say something I consider worth saying, as long as I'm able to understand it -- and whether or not it's couched in perfect English. I happen to think Sea makes a potentially valid point here. So there, big boy. Go entertain yourself some other way.

You called it a "good point" and it's not a good point--it doesn't make any damn sense. If you can extract some meaning from it, more power to you--I can't. Perhaps you would be so kind as to translate the seaoatspeak for me.

del.capslock wrote:Perhaps you would be so kind as to translate the seaoatspeak for me.

At the risk of seeming a fool for taking you at your word that you'd truly like to know what meaning I see in Sea's statement:

I believe he's simply saying that perceived investigatory threats to Trump's own family unit -- specifically Jared (and thus Ivanka) -- would far more likely result in Trump's recent "off the rails" actions (e.g., firing Comey and insulting him before the Russians) than would similar threats to Flynn -- a guy he apparently likes (or used to) but who, after all, isn't a Trump.

In other words, if Trump is acting irrationally, it's perhaps because the FBI et al are now looking closely at his own family -- something he simply can't deal with.

del.capslock wrote:Perhaps you would be so kind as to translate the seaoatspeak for me.

At the risk of seeming a fool for taking you at your word that you'd truly like to know what meaning I see in Sea's statement:

I believe he's simply saying that perceived investigatory threats to Trump's own family unit -- specifically Jared (and thus Ivanka) -- would far more likely result in Trump's recent "off the rails" actions (e.g., firing Comey and insulting him before the Russians) than would similar threats to Flynn -- a guy he apparently likes (or used to) but who, after all, isn't a Trump.

In other words, if Trump is acting irrationally, it's perhaps because the FBI et al are now looking closely at his own family -- something he simply can't deal with.

Sea, please correct me if I'm wrong.

Now go ahead and insult me, too, del. I'm used to it here.

Ok then, let's lay this out, shall we:

You believe that 2seaoat's moronic post meant that Trump's irrational actions are because the FBI may now be looking at a member of his family and that he wouldn't "go off the rails" if it was Flynn being attacked.

Correct? Have I got that right?

Now, lets look at my post:

It comprised one prefatory sentence explaining that Kushner was now a "person of interest" and, the meat of the post, three sentences describing the tangled relationship of Kushner's lawyer to Mueller with a final two sentence personal comment.

THE MEAT OF THE POST WAS THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN GORELICK AND MUELLER.

Now, let's look at the posts in order:

1) My original, perfectly sensible post with a brief introduction and final comment.

2) A post from the angry, closeted adolescent Waiting that linked to a totally irrelevant article.

3) Your comment that my post was "disturbing" and that you agreed with my introductory bit about Kushner.

7) Your deranged, savage and personal attack on me for having the temerity to gently criticize the esteemed Mr. Seaoat's grammar.

8 ) Vikingwoman's lunatic nonsense. (I had to put a space in there because otherwise a smiley face thing shows up and I do not want to be mistaken for an adolescent schoolgirl posting social tripe)

9) My well-reasoned and serene defense of my original post which you had so viciously, with inhuman malice aforethought, attacked.

10) Your reaction to Vikingwoman.

And finally, 11) Your take on Seaoats's post.

Here's my reply to all that:

IF YOUR TAKE ON SEAOAT'S POST IS CORRECT, HE MISSED THE ENTIRE POINT OF THE GODDAMN POST WHICH WAS THE CONNECTION BETWEEN KUSHNER'S LAWYER AND MUELLER. YOU FIENDISHLY ATTACKED ME AND DEFENDED HIS COMPLETE MISAPPREHENSION OF CLEARLY WRITTEN ENGLISH WHICH I BELIEVE IS HIS MOTHER TONGUE AND IN WHICH HE REPEATEDLY FAILS TO PROPERLY EXPRESS HIMSELF.

There, I feel so much better now. I can go back to yelling at my TV because that cocksucker Rick Santorum is talking on it as if he is an actual intelligent human with something to add to any discourse.

You and Joani need to get your stories straight. This Bill person can't be del and Tel both. Waaaay too different in too many ways. So which is it?

I never said Telstar was Bill but contrary to what you think you can have several socks w/ different writings. There were several phrases that jumped out at me that remembered the writing. Personally, I don't care who it is. I'm over all that forum fighting.

Vikingwoman wrote:I never said Telstar was Bill but contrary to what you think you can have several socks w/ different writings.

I never said you did -- but Joani did. So you say one thing; Joani says another, and my point is that both of your supposed sock I.D.'s can't be right in this particular case. In fact it should be perfectly obvious to anyone carefully observing their writings that del.capslock and Telstar are entirely different individuals.

Vikingwoman wrote:Well, you know your elevator never went to the top and that hasn't changed. More likely has gotten worse w/ age.

You seem to be struggling with delusional thinking.

Perhaps a long stay in a mental hospital would help. Coupled, naturally, with a course of strong anti-psychotic drugs and a snappy canvas blazer with those wrap-around arms.

Or, to put it more bluntly: BITE ME, lady.

Look you want to come on this forum and start your shit? I suggest you start acting a little more sane than your nasty alter ego before Boards finds out and kicks you to the curb. Nobody wants to deal w/ you and your personality disorder. You know when it comes out full blown and it will you will be banned like so many times before. You never learn,man.

Vikingwoman wrote:Look you want to come on this forum and start your shit? I suggest you start acting a little more sane than your nasty alter ego before Boards finds out and kicks you to the curb. Nobody wants to deal w/ you and your personality disorder. You know when it comes out full blown and it will you will be banned like so many times before. You never learn,man.

Vikingwoman wrote:Well, you know your elevator never went to the top and that hasn't changed. More likely has gotten worse w/ age.

You seem to be struggling with delusional thinking.

Perhaps a long stay in a mental hospital would help. Coupled, naturally, with a course of strong anti-psychotic drugs and a snappy canvas blazer with those wrap-around arms.

Or, to put it more bluntly: BITE ME, lady.

Look you want to come on this forum and start your shit? I suggest you start acting a little more sane than your nasty alter ego before Boards finds out and kicks you to the curb. Nobody wants to deal w/ you and your personality disorder. You know when it comes out full blown and it will you will be banned like so many times before. You never learn,man.

You know that's the way Bob explained it to Joani and Neko about 5 years ago. They accused a newbie of being a Bill sock and said he should be banned outright. Bob said that Boards had banned lots of Bills socks so if Boards thought he was Bill he would be gone. Eventually the newbie was banned but I don't know when that happened. Boards seems to be pretty good at keeping the forum Bill free, just saying.